Thanks. I hope you read my article. What I told Phil Johnson eleven
years ago was that ID had to stand or fall on its capability to
actually further the reach of science, preferably by either falsifying
some current well-accepted theory or ((better) by suggesting some new
research directions, directions which were unlikely to be suggested by
methodological naturalism. Johnson, of course, both then and now
conflates methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism;
that leads the ID crowd down (I think) the wrong path.

I ran across the ID concept first of all on the Thaxton-Bradley book
THEORIES OF LIFE'S ORIGINS (I may have the title wrong) published in
the late 1980s -- as I remember by the Philosophical Press. As a
philosophy, it was very intriguing. When I attended the Austin
conference in 1997 (several other ASAers were there) I was of a
mindset to be convinced. I left unconvinced, partially influenced by
the agenda of Johnson. I wished him well -- indeed I held a hope then
that he might be successful. I've read his ensuing books; they have
not modified my views.

Part of me still wishes the ID movement to "come up with something."
My rational mind, however, tells me that is a vanishing hope. About
once a year I reread YOUR GOD IS TOO SMALL. When I do I see ID's god
as also "too small."

Cheers.

Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 21 17:13:55 2008